Advance directives and the impact of timing. A qualitative study with Swiss general practitioners.

PRINCIPLES: Advance directives are seen as an important tool for documenting the wishes of patients who are no longer competent to make decisions in regards to their medical care. Due to their nature, approaching the subject of advance directives with a patient can be difficult for both the medical care provider and the patient. This paper focuses on general practitioners' perspectives regarding the timing at which this discussion should take place, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the different moments. METHODS: In 2013, 23 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were performed with Swiss general practitioners. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In our sample, 23 general practitioners provided different options that they felt were appropriate moments: either (a) when the patient is still healthy, (b) when illness becomes predominant, or (c) when a patient has been transferred to a long-term care facility. Furthermore, general practitioners reported uncertainty and discomfort regarding initiating the discussion. CONCLUSION: The distinct approaches, perspectives and rationales show that there is no well-defined or "right" moment. However, participants often associated advance directives with death. This link caused discomfort and uncertainty, which led to hesitation and delay on the part of general practitioners. Therefore we recommend further training on how to professionally initiate a conversation about advance directives. Furthermore, based on our results and experience, we recommend an early approach with healthy patients paired with later regular updates as it seems to be the most effective way to inform patients about their end-of-life care options.

Variation in treatment strategies of Swiss general practitioners for subclinical hypothyroidism in older adults.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: As the best management of subclinical hypothyroidism is controversial, we aimed to assess variations in treatment strategies depending on different Swiss regions, physician and patient characteristics. METHODS: We performed a case-based survey among general practitioners (GPs) in different Swiss regions, which consisted of eight hypothetical cases presenting a female patient with subclinical hypothyroidism and nonspecific complaints differing by age, vitality status and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentration. RESULTS: A total of 262 GPs participated in the survey. There was considerable variation in the levothyroxine starting dose chosen by GPs, ranging from 25 µg to 100 µg. Across the Swiss regions, GPs in the Bern region were significantly more inclined to treat, with a higher probability of initiating treatment (60%, p = 0.01) and higher mean starting doses (45 µg, p <0.01) compared with the French-speaking region (44%, 36 µg); the Zurich region had intermediate values (52%, 39 µg). We found no association between treatment rate and other physician characteristics. GPs were more reluctant to initiate treatment in 85-year-old than in 70-year-old women (odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.94), and more likely to treat women with a TSH of 15 mU/l than those with a TSH of 6mU/l (OR 8.71, 95% CI 6.21-12.20). CONCLUSIONS: There are strong variations in treatment strategies for elderly patients with subclinical hypothyroidism across different Swiss regions, including use of higher starting doses than the recommended 25 µg in the Swiss guidelines, which recommend a starting dose of 25 µg. These variations likely reflect the current uncertainty about the benefits of treatment, which arise from the current lack of evidence from adequately powered clinical trials.